HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800085 Correspondence 2019-03-29ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC. s
A PROFESSIONAL CC)lii'C)ItATRW g p
LaxD se<RVEtINc "eri�iatg L rr irahi Sirt('e 19%
ENCINF RING
LAND PLANNING IA( d'N F 1-141 \t. IX M R I MIA I Y "R\ F 1 111 11 \R I CIF \ I
1711,()l I'll ft%N'fC)Pt DRlVL S l"L A 914 \h )\ I I(I LLO RO.\U
JIM I . TWC Vt1'. Ill'. (l l.\RL01 H N ►LIT" VA "L) I I CI IARL)) t t Ea\ ILLE:, � \ _21x1' \111.1 1:1I�1I J. 1 I:U131 1`I'F.It. I
UO\ I'RAM O. P.I.. III 1i1\1' (4141 )71)-9I21 11110\F t414) k)77-020,; BRIAN 1)..).1\IISO\. L.S.
l)\\IDN1.R011l\ti))-Rl I'.\\I4?4t`)79-1(,XI I1)WID\.J()RI1\\.I.S.
1\l\1� MALf )R) i1_ I ... \. 1 V O a Rot 1) \131 ,I I.( ) )\l K Rlti I (11'1 ILR (. \\ 1 \ I I.Rti, L.�.
March 29, 2019
Ms. Mariah Gleason
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP-2018-00085 Vistas at South Pantops — Final Site Plan
Dear Mariah,
Please find attached the revised plans. The plans have been revised to address the comments
in accordance with the following:
1. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a)] On Sheet 1, please amend the project number for this final
site plan to "SDP2018-00085." Please also include the initial site plan project number
(SDP2018-00008) on this sheet for reference purposes.
RESPONSE: The number has been amended and Initial site plan number has been added.
2. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.1(b)] Please submit one (1) reduced copy of the final site plan no larger
than 11x17 inches in size.
RESPONSE: A reduced copy of the plan will be added to this submission.
3. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a)] Review of the deed book records and County GIS indicate
this parcel (78-20) is 13.12 acres in size, as compared to the 13.31 acres listed in the site
plan. Please review and revise these values to conform with parcel records.
RESPONSE: Boundary information is based on a boundary survey performed by
Dominion Engineering, dated 09/0712017. It is my interpretation that there is a slight
discrepancy due to the rear property line following the centerline of the river, and
therefore, some interpretation and natural fluctuation of the river occurs. Note 9 on the
boundary plat addresses this problem. The area of 13.308 acres (13.31 acres rounded) is
the same area used on the approved subdivision plat by Roudabush, Gale and
Associates where we created the special lot.
4. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(r)] The plans do not appear to adhere to, or include, many
items included in the legend on Sheet 1. Please revise the legend and/or plans to be
consistent with one another.
RESPONSE: The legend on sheet 1 has been updated to reflect the line types being used
in plan view.
5. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(r)] Throughout the plan, please ensure that all identifying lines
are labeled, by connected leader line or legend, and that they are easily distinguished from
one another. Please pay particular attention to Sheets 2 and 7.
RESPONSE: Line types have been changed and additional text with leaders have been
added for clarity.
6. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.1(e)(6), 32.6.2(a), 32.5.1(c)(4)] Please provide horizontal dimensions for all
proposed structures.
RESPONSE: Additional dimensions have been added.
7. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(s)] With regard to utilities noted on Sheet 6, please include
notes if any lines will be demolished, disturbed, or relocated during construction.
RESPONSE: The existing sanitary sewer will be demolished and removed in accordance
with ACSA standards.
8. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(g)] Please ensure that all existing and proposed public easements are
identified in the plans.
RESPONSE: All existing and proposed easement layers have been turned on. The
hatching for preserved steep slopes has been turned off on some sheets for clarity.
9. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(d), Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(s)] Please identify each easement as public or
private.
RESPONSE: Labels have been revised.
10. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(1), 32.5.2(o)] Prior to final site plan approval, it is necessary to
obtain County approval of a plat showing all proposed easements (such as utility
easements, stormwater management facility easements, and public use recreation
easements) as well as all areas intended for dedication to the County for public use. The
platting of easements and lands to be dedicated to the County for public use can be
processed all together in one plat application, or separately, however the applicant prefers.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
11. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(o)] On Sheet 5, it is not clear if a right-of-way dedication is
being indicated by the hatched fill on/adjacent to the roadway. If this is the case, please add
a label on Sheet 5, update the legend, and also add a note stating that `the land is to be
dedicated or reserved for public use." Please note that any such dedication requires the
submission and approval of a plat and corresponding deed of dedication. (See previous note
regarding easements.)
RESPONSE: The right taper lane has been revised. The right of way dedication is no
longer being proposed.
12. R.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Please coordinate with Mr. Dan Mahon, in the Albemarle
County Department of Parks and Recreation (ACPR), regarding potential trail alignment and
potential public use easement boundaries for the "proposed public nature trail' noted on
Sheet 3_
RESPONSE: Applicant is working directly with Parks and Rec.
13. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(s)] On Sheet 3, please include with the "proposed public nature
trail' label a note that the final site plan represents an approximate alignment, and the final
alignment will be determined by County Staff and built in partnership with the County.
RESPONSE: The applicant is working directly with Parks and Rec.
14. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a)] On Sheet 1, please provide a list of planned recreation
amenities and reference/note the approved Request for Substitution of Required Recreation
Areas and Facilities dated September 20, 2018.
RESPONSE: Note has been added.
15. [Z.O. Sec. 4.16.2.1] The tot lot area must be fenced to provide a safe environment for young
children due to the proximity of steep slopes, the travelway and parking area, and South
Pantops Drive. Please demonstrate that this tot lot fencing requirement is met by showing a
visual depiction of a fence and by adding a note and/or label_
RESPONSE: Detail and label have been added.
16. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(n)] On Sheet 3 or 4, please include the approximate location
and size (total square feet) of the proposed clubhouse within Building 3.
RESPONSE: Label and linework has been added. The clubhouse is 7280 sf enclosed.
There is a 720 sf roof deck on the fourth floor. More details to be provided with the
architectural plans.
17. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(i)] On Sheet 1, please revise the "Parking Required" site data calculations
to include the new minimum parking requirements established through the approved Parking
Determination dated December 18, 2018. Specifically, please include the minimum parking
requirement information that is currently shown (as typically required by County Code), and
add the new minimum parking requirements with a reference to the aforementioned
determination (include document name and date).
RESPONSE: Note has been added.
18. [Z.O. Sec. 4.12.17(c)(1)] The parking layout, between the surface lot in front of Building 3
leading to the podium parking in Building 2, does not meet code requirements for two-way
access. The required minimum width is 20 feet. Please revise the parking schedule to
conform to code requirements.
RESPONSE: Parking layout has been redesigned.
19. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(n)] Please provide the proposed paving materials or other
surface materials forall walks, parking lots, and driveways. *Unaddressed comment from the
Initial Plan approval.
RESPONSE: Trail detail, sidewalk detail, dumpster pad detail, and typical pavement
section for the parking lot is provided on sheet 11.
20. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(n)] Please show the proposed location(s) of outdoor trash
containers. *Unaddressed comment from the Initial Plan approval.
RESPONSE: Trash compactor location is west of building 1. Dumpster pad detail has
been added to sheet 11.
21. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b-c), 32.7.9.5(b)] On Sheet 8, please identify the
location/extent of the existing tree canopy that will be preserved and maintained, as it is
being used for the canopy bonus and (presumably) being utilized in lieu of new street trees
that would otherwise be required along South Pantops Drive.
RESPONSE: Hatching and label has been added to sheet 8 to indicate that the existing
tree canopy on the preserved steep slopes are to remain.
22. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b)(2)] For all existing wooded areas that are being preserved
and maintained in the plan to meet tree canopy requirements and/or street tree
requirements, please submit a signed Conservation Plan Checklist and include any
information required by the checklist into the plan documents, as necessary. See attached.
RESPONSE: The conservation checklist has been added to sheet 8.
23. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9.5] The current street trees specified for the street tree plantings
(serviceberry) do not meet County Code requirements. Please select a large shade tree
species to replace the current species. Any large tree species prescribed by the Albemarle
County Recommended Plants List, attached, is acceptable. If another species is desired by
the applicant, please submit a request and we will evaluate whether the substitution is
acceptable.
RESPONSE: Street trees along South Pantops Drive adjacent to the Preserved steep
slopes have been removed.
24. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b-c), 32.7.9.5(b)] Please ensure that all new street trees are
located outside of the right-of-way.
RESPONSE: Street trees have been moved out of the right-of-way.
25. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9] The planting schedule depicted on Sheet 8 does not readily
align with the Planting Schedule table provided on Sheet 9. Please review and revise these
items to ensure consistency and provide clarity.
RESPONSE: Schedule and table has been revised.
26. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9] On Sheet 8, please use genus and species names when
identifying intended tree placements on -site.
RESPONSE: Genus name has been added to the legend on sheet 8.
27. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.26), 32.7.9.4(d)] In the Planting Schedule table, please include an additional
column within the tree category to specify the category of tree, as it relates to the Albemarle
County Recommended Plants List. For example: Large Deciduous; Medium Deciduous;
Small Deciduous; Ornamental Tree.
RESPONSE: Category column has been added.
28. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(c)] On Sheet 7, the contour labels, grading elevations, and symbology
used for contour lines are not consistent and, at times, actually appear to use the same line
type. Please ensure that existing and proposed contours are depicted differently, and please
ensure the contour labels and graphic conventions are consistent.
RESPONSE: Contours and labels have been revised. Hatching for preserved steep
slopes have been turned off for clarity.
29. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(s)] Please label the maximum height of all retaining walls.
It appears that this is already shown for the retaining wall between Buildings 1 and 3,
but please make sure that all retaining wall heights are provided.
RESPONSE: Additional labels have been added.
30. [Advisory Comment] Please be advised that, prior to a certificate of occupancy being
granted, safety fencing is required along the top of the retaining wall on the southern
edge of the property due to its height. Staff requests this fencing to be added (by
graphic depiction and label) to this final site plan.
RESPONSE: Graphic and labels have been added. All safety railing will meet 2015
Virginia construction code. The details for handrails associated with the buildings
will be submitted with architecture package.
31. [Z.O. 32.6.2(a), Sec. 32.5.2(a)] Review sheet index list and individual sheet titles to
ensure these names match and are spelled correctly.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made.
32. [Z.O. 32.6.2(a), Sec. 32.5.2(a)] On Sheet 1, include in the sheet index a total number
of sheets.
RESPONSE: Total number of sheets has been added.
33. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a)] On Sheet 2, please revise the Legend to add the word
"Steep" when describing Preserved and Managed Steep Slopes. For example,
"Preserved Steep Slopes" and "Managed Steep Slopes". *Unaddressed comment from
the Initial Plan approval.
RESPONSE: Revision has been made.
34. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(h)] On Sheet 2, please label the Flood Hazard Overlay
District.
RESPONSE: Revisions has been made to the line types and more labels have been
added for clarity.
35. [Z.O. 32.6.2(a), Sec. 32.5.2(r)] On Sheet 2, the Soil Type Boundary in the legend is
not readily distinguishable on the map. Please revise.
RESPONSE: A different line type has been selected for clarity.
36. [Advisory Comment] Currently, the County holds an easement across the subject
property for the Old Mills Trail greenway corridor. Per note 6 on the easement
recorded in Deed Book 2913, Pages 156-162, that recorded easement states that the
greenway corridor is reserved for future dedication to the County for public use, upon
demand by the County in conjunction with any site development plan approval. Please
be advised that it is staff's understanding that the County is likely to make a demand
for dedication of the land referred to in that recorded easement upon approval of the
final site plan (as may be applicable).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (John Anderson)
Title sheet
1. Revise site plan title to reference SDP201800085.
RESPONSE: Title has been revised.
2. On title sheet, include Note reference to The Vistas at South Pantops Critical Slopes Exhibit,
rev. d. 5/11/18, PE -seal date 5/17/18, Approved by Engineering Division 5/17/18, filed with
SDP201800008.
RESPONSE: Note has been added to the title sheet.
3. Revise index to include retaining wall design for all walls associated with travel ways and
parking areas. Retaining wall design for walls integral to buildings 1, 2, or 3 may be
submitted with building permit application/s.
RESPONSE: Retaining wall design is currently in progress and will be provided under
separate cover following FSP submittal.
4. Provide retaining wall design for retaining walls associated with travel ways or parking areas
that are not integral to buildings 1, 2, or 3. (Ref. site plan and retaining wall plan review
checklists; Attached).
RESPONSE: Retaining wall design is currently in progress and will be provided under
separate cover following FSP submittal.
5. Provide /show outline location/s of conceptual SWM detention or treatment systems.
VSMPN1/PO plan must be approved prior to Final Site Plan approval. (WPO201800095 is
under review.)
RESPONSE: Please see WPO2018-00095 for locations.
6. Revise Erosion Control, ES-1 Note to ref. 9VAC25-840-40.
RESPONSE: Note has been revised.
7. Plan Note 3: Revise to eliminate contractor responsibility to obtain state -federal permits.
Albemarle will not approve a VSMPNI/PO plan unless /until required state /federal permits
are acquired. FSP cannot be approved without an approved VSMP/WPO plan. Permit
acquisition is an Applicant /Owner responsibility.
RESPONSE: Notes has been changed to "Applicant/Owner" instead of contractor.
8. Plan Note 3: Revise to clarify Property Owner is required to post SWM-ESC-Mitigation plan
bonds.
RESPONSE: Notes has been revised.
9. Plan Note 4: Revise to read County Engineer, rather than District Engineer.
RESPONSE: Notes has been revised.
Sheet 2
10. Delete ref. to ISP10 for preserved slope details. Provide label reference to Critical
Slopes Exhibit approved by CDD/Engineering on 5/17/18, filed with
SDP201800008.
RESPONSE: Notes has been revised.
11. Recommend show 'special lot' boundaries. Provide note reference to SUB201800176.
RESPONSE: Line has been added to show "Open Space" with note referencing future
county dedication.
Sheet 3
12. Provide label reference to proposed private nature trail detail. Provide trail detail. Ref.
ASCDSM.
RESPONSE: Label has been revised and detail has been added to sheet 11.
13. Label all pedestrian crosswalks.
RESPONSE: Crosswalks have been labeled.
14. Provide/label crosswalk striping.
RESPONSE: Crosswalk label and striping have been added.
15. Label all CG12. Provide CG-12 ramps at travelway/sidewalk crossing locations in plan view.
RESPONSE: Labels and ramps have been added.
16. Label sidewalk width for sidewalk fronting parking spaces located on south side of Vistas
Way.
RESPONSE: Label has been added.
17. Some proposed parking space /travel way linework is gray; revise to black to indicate
proposed improvements. Applies to sheets 4, 5 gray line type, as well.
RESPONSE: Linework has been edited.
18. Label retaining wall/s.
RESPONSE: Labels have been added.
19. Provide /label retaining wall handrails, wherever wall ht. > 4-ft.
RESPONSE: Labels have been added.
20. Label guardrail. Provide label reference to GR-2 detail, sheet 19.
RESPONSE: Label has been added.
21. Label sidewalk width facing South Pantops Drive.
RESPONSE: Label has been added.
22. Label South Pantops Rd. right-of-way_(linework).
RESPONSE: Label has been added.
23. Provide outline location/s of on -site SWM facilities (conceptual level), consistent with
WPO201800095.
RESPONSE: Please see WPO-2018-00095.
24. Approx. location 100' water protection ordinance buffer leader line may be inaccurate.
RESPONSE: Label and linework/layer has been corrected.
25. WPO buffer location may require revision; confirm location buffer. Revise leader line, if
necessary.
RESPONSE: Label and linework has been corrected.
Sheet 4:
26. Last parking space, NW comer of Vistas Way parking lot measures 13.2 (`sheltered'
length =16'). Revise island west of this parking space to provide 'sheltered' length =18-ft.
Sheet 20 indicates fire truck will contact fender of vehicle parked in this space at a
location 17-ft. distant from face of curb fronting this space_ Revise to provide 1-ft.
clearance between fire vehicle turn figures; that is, 19-ft. from face of curb fronting this
parking space.
RESPONSE: The parking island in the NW and SW corner of Vistas Way has been
redesigned. The parking space has been shifted closer to South Pantops drive.
27. Revise label at dumpster pad, so legible (revise grayscale text to black).
RESPONSE: Revision has been made.
28. Show and label existing terrain contours.
RESPONSE: Layer has been turned on.
29. Label entrance width at narrowest point. Applies to sheet 5, as well.
RESPONSE: Label has been added.
Sheet 5:
30. Provide auto-tum figures for typical passenger vehicle encountering a second typ.
passenger vehicle traveling in the opposite direction at:
a. Travel way curve just prior to entering/leaving building 3 parking deck.
b. At curve measuring 17-ft., FC-FC, on approach to 23-space parking area west of building 2.
RESPONSE: Exhibit will be provided with this submission.
31. Ensure aisle width in 23-space parking area west of building 2 is at least 20-ft.
RESPONSE: Aisle width has been made 24 feet and a label has been added.
32. Label parking aisle width (item 31).
RESPONSE: Aisle width has been adjusted and label has been added.
33. Revise design as needed to provide travelway width for typical passenger vehicles to pass
one another at all locations, when traveling in opposite directions.
RESPONSE: Travel way has been revised.
34. Provide mirror to aid residents exiting building 3 to minimize chance of collision with
vehicle/s reversing from parking spaces in the 16-space parking area. Sight distance is
inadequate.
RESPONSE: Mirror has been provided and labeled.
35. In the following locations, recommend stripe 2 spaces as `No Parking' to allow parked
vehicles to reverse, and travel in a forward direction:
c. N corner building 1, beyond stairwell;
d. SE corner building 2, beyond stairwell;
e. NW corner building 3, before stairwell;
Note: Recommendation results in loss of 6 parking spaces.
Note: If recommendation not accepted, provide alternate design to ensure all vehicles using
building parking decks can reverse and travel in a forward direction without performing
extreme, multi -point or precise reverse maneuvers.
RESPONSE: The travel way is 24 feet wide which provides adequate space for a
regular passenger vehicle to maneuver.
Sheet 6
36. Label rectangular structure south of Str. 11. Rectangle differs in shape and style from typical
DI.
RESPONSE: Structure is a DI-7. Label has been added.
37. Show and label existing terrain contours.
RESPONSE: Layer has been turned on.
38. Ensure adequate drainage easement width, all section of proposed storm system. For
example, 20' is insufficient for storm line depth between structures 3 and 4. Ref.
easement width diagram, ACDSM, p. 15.
RESPONSE: Easements have been revised.
39. Ensure `for residential development, the principal access [Vistas Way is] free of flooding
during the 25-yr storm.' Ref. item 4, Drainage, Drainage Plan review checklist. Provide
LD-229 based on 25-Vr event. Note: development anticipates 949 trips per day (144
units). Vistas Way is a principal access.
RESPONSE: 229 and 204 calculations are provided on sheet 13.
40. Show /label VDOT ES, as Str. 1.
RESPONSE: Label has been added.
41. Label slope of storm line between Str. 9 and 10. Ensure slope < 16%. Ref. Drainage plan
review checklist.
RESPONSE: Storm network has been redesigned.
Sheet 7
42. Provide additional detail/labels for pool deck area of plan (TW/BW, if retaining wall;
spot elevations). Geometry of structures in this location is unclear.
RESPONSE: Pool deck details will be submitted with building plans by architect. All
areas on the site will have handrails or guardrails where walls are higher than 4 feet. All
railings associated with the building will meet the 2015 Virginia Construction Code.
43. Provide/label handrails wherever wall ht. > 4-ft., including pool deck area.
RESPONSE: Labels have been added.
44. At tangent section of travel way just prior to entering building 3 parking deck, revise %
grade labels so legible.
RESPONSE: Labels have been revised.
45. Add flow lines and % grade to asphalt surface to ensure runoff reaches Str. 5.
RESPONSE: Grading plan has been revised to provide clarity.
46. Revise proposed improvements line type from grayscale to black. Also, similar comments
elsewhere.
RESPONSE: Line types have been made darker.
47. Provide TW/BW elevations along retaining wall south of building 2.
RESPONSE: Labels have been added.
48. Show and label existing terrain contours.
RESPONSE: Contours and labels are shown.
49. Ensure entrance grade <_ 4% for at least 40', measured from EP, South Pantops Drive.
Ref. site plan review checklist, entrance improvements, item 2.
RESPONSE: Entrance grade is 1.25%.
Sheet 8
50. Two (2) serviceberry trees conflict with Str. 7 and 8; revise landscape plan to eliminate
conflict.
RESPONSE: Landscape plan has been revised.
Sheet 12
51. Provide pavement design for Vistas Way based on 949 VPD. Proposed pavement section
Dp=8.14, but Dr=14.575. Revise Vistas Way pavement section to ensure that Dp(rovided)
>_ D r(equired).
RESPONSE: Worksheet has been added and the typical section has been revised.
Sheet 14
52. Recommend against 0.50% grade, EXSDMH to Str. 10. If As -built condition of this
storm line pipe < 0.50%, owner must provide remedy
RESPONSE: The existing 15" RCP pipe under South Pantops Drive is 4.5%
53. Max. grade storm line pipe is 16%. Revise proposed grade of storm line pipe between Str 9
and 10.
RESPONSE: The storm network has been redesigned.
54. Provide label identifying structure located 2.7' below storm line between Str. 8 and 9.
RESPONSE: Sanitary pipe layer has been turned on.
55. Provide note requiring specific compaction for MH Str. placed in fill; that is, Str. 5B,
6B, and 6C, to minimize issues related to settling. Forexample:
RESPONSE: Note has been added.
56. Show/label VDOT ES-1 in profile (Str. 1).
RESPONSE: ES-1 has been shownllabeled in profile.
57. Inlet calculation tables are not VDOT LD-204, LD-229 format. Provide LD-204 for
inlets; LD-229 for storm sewer design.
RESPONSE: Format of tables have been changed.
58. Since vertical drop in `step-down' MH Str. 5 > 4% provide Y2" steel plate in floor of MH;
ref. VDOT drainage manual, p. 9-38.
RESPONSE: Label has been added.
59. Max. water depth for 5.5" inlet throat ht. = 0.458'. Ensure water depth <_ Max. depth.
RESPONSE: Storm network has been redesigned. A 204 table has been added to the
sheets for clarity.
60. Sheet 18: Provide MH Step detail.
RESPONSE: Detail STA has been added.
61. Sheet 19: Provide dumpster pad detail; ref. site plan review checklist, p. 3, item 8.
RESPONSE: Detail has been added to sheet 11.
62. Sheet 19: Provide handrail detail.
RESPONSE: VDOT HR-1 detail has been added to the "Details" sheets. The handrail
design will be submitted with architecture package. The handrails will meet minimum
code standards.
63. Sheet 20: Engineering defers to ACFR on adequate geometric design for fire -rescue needs.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
64. Relates to ESC Plan: Email from John Anderson dated 01/11/2019.- Please provide V-2year
at structure 1 (system outfall), and riprap L x W x D design, consistent with VESCH design
guidelines (Std. & Spec. 3.18 Outlet protection). Label Str.1 outfall riprap L x W x D
dimensions on the VSMP/WPO Plan (WPO 2018-00095), and on the final site plan.
RESPONSE: Outlet protection has been designed using DEQ standards.
65. Email from John Anderson, dated 01/16/2019:
Right turn lane:
• Sheet 12 shows South Pantops Drive typical road cross section with proposed 12' right turn
lane. Please revise site layout sheets (3, 4, 5) to show and label proposed rt. turn lane in
plan view (unless overlooked).
RESPONSE: Please see sheet 12 for a clear plan view of the proposed right taper lane.
Previous submission showed a right turn lane, but only a right taper lane is required and
will be provided. Plan have been revised.
• Sheet 2 shows variable width Ex. concrete ditch section. Please revise sheet 2 to show
portion of Ex. concrete ditch to be removed /demolished.
RESPONSE: Label has been added.
66. Email from David James, dated 01/17/2019:
1. The outfall pipes from storm structure 4 should be adjusted (enlarged/raised, etc.), or be
made watertight based upon HGL. {DSM, pg.14}
RESPONSE: Entire system has been revised.
2. All drainage from public ROW should be shown in an easement. Minimum width 20' &
meets DSM, pg. 14 width requirement
RESPONSE: All easements have been revised.
3. Sheet 10 - Pipe (2-1) & (3-2)
a. Velocity shall not exceed 15 ft/s in pipes.
RESPONSE: The storm network has been redesigned.
b. Provide anchor blocks at every other pipe joint for storms pipes over 16% slope.
A "step down" manhole system can be used in steeper terrain to reduce pipe
gradient.
RESPONSE: Anchor blocks have been added.
c. Correct the tables -node IDs showing `64' or don't match the nodes shown on
Sheet 5 map.
RESPONSE: New tables have been added in the 229 and 204 formats.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911 —Andrew Walker)
"No Objection".
Albemarle County Building Inspections (Michael Dellinger)
"No Objection".
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue (Shawn Maddox)
1. FDC for only one building is shown on the plans. All three FDC's must be shown on the
plans and within 100 feet of a hydrant. At our last meeting in the Roudabush Office we
discussed three FDC's located at the entrance.
RESPONSE: FDC have been revised.
2. The entire length of the travel way shall be marked No Parking Fire Lane" to include the
area being counted as the turn around.
RESPONSE: No parking sigs
3. Afire flow test will be required prior to final acceptance.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Albemarle County Service Authority (Richard Nelson)
General
1. Provide fixture counts for the buildings. This will determine the water meter size.
RESPONSE: Excel sheet with fixture counts provided with submission.
2. Provide water and sewer data sheets with the next submission.
RESPONSE: Water and sewer data sheets provided with submission.
3. Remove the following sheets from ACSA submission: 9-13, 16 and20.
RESPONSE: Sheets have been removed.
Sheet 6
1. Show existing sewer main.
RESPONSE: Layer has been turned on.
2. Call out pipe diameter, material, and fittings.
RESPONSE: Labels have been revised.
3. Show gate valves, as shown on plans.
RESPONSE: Gate valves have been added.
4. Add a fire hydrant as shown on plans and relocate FDC as shown on plans.
RESPONSE: Hydrant and FDC have been added as requested.
5. Relocate water main going to the last hydrant, as shown on plans.
RESPONSE: Water main has been changed as requested.
Sheet 7
1. Remove portion of proposed retaining wall out of ACSA sewer easement.
RESPONSE: Wall has been removed from easement.
Sheet 8
1. Remove proposed landscaping from ACSA easements, as shown on plan.
RESPONSE: Landscaping has been removed from ACSA easements.
2. ACSA does not own the fire line passed the gate valve. Refer to plans regarding our
easement.
RESPONSE: Easements have been revised. Parallel easements have been combined into
one easement.
Sheet 15
1. It appears MH 2B is above grade, but also appears to be in the parking lot.
RESPONSE: Grade has been corrected.
2. The proposed grade elevation is not connected between MH 2D_2C.
RESPONSE: Grade has been corrected.
Virginia Department of Transportation (Adam Moore)
1. This plan does not provide enough detail concerning the proposed improvements to Route
1140. Where are the pavement markings for the right turn lane? What are the dimensions of
the turn lane and taper?
RESPONSE: The plan has been cleaned up for clarity. Additional labels have been added
to indicated the proposed improvements.
2. Please explain the proposed hatching located right of the entrance on Route 1140. The
proposed turn lane should tie in to the existing turn lane, making a continuous right -turn
lane.
RESPONSE: The first submission of the FSP showed a right lane being added along the
entire frontage of the property. For this submission, only a right taper lane is proposed
(and required). The existing guardrail is to remain except where there is conflict with the
proposed addition of the taper lane at approximately the last 36 feet near the entrance.
New guardrail is proposed for this section and is offset 1 foot from the proposed 5-foot
sidewalk. CG-6 and a 5-foot sidewalk is proposed along the frontage of the property. The
CG-6 at the north end of the property will connect with existing CG-6. New guardrail will
be installed at this portion as well.
3. A 3-foot buffer strip is required between the curb and sidewalk
RESPONSE: Adding a 3-foot buffer strip would require the applicant to demolish the
entire length of existing guardrail and would require construction of a retaining wall in
the critical slopes for grade lines to tie in. Since the east side of South Pantops Drive
does not have a 3-foot buffer strip — the applicant would like VDOT to consider the effect
of the buffer strip due to space constraints.
4. All retaining walls that support structures within the right-of-way must be approved by the
Culpeper District Structure & Bridge Section.
RESPONSE: The retaining wall along South Pantops Drive has been removed from the
plan since only a right -taper is required.
5. What type of retaining wall is being proposed along Route 1140? How will guardrail posts
affect this design, particularly if an MSE wall?
RESPONSE: The retaining wall design will be provided with building permits. The
retaining wall along South Pantops Drive has been removed from the plan since only a
right -taper is required. The handrail for the wall on the south side of the entrance will
meet all required safety standards.
6. The bench behind the guardrail must be at least 4 inches, and, if less than 2 feet, guardrail
posts must be 9 feet in length.
RESPONSE: The retaining wall along South Pantops Drive has been removed from the
plan since only a right -taper is required.
7. Provide all applicable VDOT Guardrail Standards (MASH). Show guardrail end sections on
plans.
RESPONSE: Detail and labels have been added to the plan.
8. There appears to be guardrail between the sidewalk and street on some plan sheets; is this
just the existing guardrail layer left on?
RESPONSE: The existing guardrail is to remain.
9. Do the proposed earthwork, retaining wall, and guardrail installation affect the existing 54"
culvert? Previous plans showed a connection being made to this culvert; is this no longer
the case?
RESPONSE: Proposed CG-6 and sidewalk improvements does not affect the existing
culvert. A flume and channel is proposed at the low point of South Pantops Drive that will
connect to the existing rip rap channel.
10. What is the hatched area along the proposed sidewalk/guardrail?
RESPONSE: Hatching and dedication is no longer proposed — only a right taper is
required.
11. The proposed crosswalk markings do not appear to be warranted. Please see IIM-TE-384.
RESPONSE: Proposed crosswalks at site entrance will be maintained by the developer.
The crosswalks at the north end of the site will be determined and maintained by the
Parks and Rec department.
12. Street trees cannot be located within 30 feet of the entrance radii.
RESPONSE: Street trees have been removed.
13. Provide the VDOT WP-2 detail and note on the plans the required area of mill and overlay in
accordance with the WP-2 standard.
RESPONSE: Detail has been added to "Details" sheet. Label has been added to sheets.
14. Is structure 11 a DI as noted on the profile? It does not appear as a DI in plan view.
RESPONSE: Structure is DI-7.
15. CG-12's should be oriented perpendicular to the crossing street (entrance).
RESPONSE: CG-12 have been revised.
16. Provide entrance radii.
RESPONSE: 25' Entrance radii labels have been added to sheets.
We thank you for taking the time to review these plans and trust the above adequately
addresses your comments. However, please let me know if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Very truly yours,
Riki Van-Niekerk
RECEIVED
ZI
Commtj NI